[Bug 188430] Review Request: gtk+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk+ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188430 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188430] Review Request: gtk+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk+ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-03 17:12 EST --- Looks ok to me, just one final clarification: The no-undefined patch is there just to help ensure that no undefined non-weak symbols sneak out in the libs later? The gtkgdkdep patch already results in libgtk being linked with libgdk and takes care of them in this case, no? FWIW, in case you didn't notice, glib has some undefined symbols as well in libgmodule-1.2.so.0.0.10 and libgthread-1.2.so.0.0.10. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188430] Review Request: gtk+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gtk+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188430
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-24 15:06 EST ---
Skimming diffs only so far, random findings or comments:
- The %if %{?fedora} 4 conditionals can be dropped for a FC6+ only package
- %check belongs logically after %install, especially if you insist on keeping
the || : in it too to support old distro versions
- Does the test suite work in headless build environments? What about mock?
- Rationale for 444 perms for /etc/gtk/gtkrc? I believe 644 would do just fine
- Possibly unowned %{_datadir}/themes dir (I haven't checked the dep tree)
- specfile not UTF-8
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
